ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02

2005-08-26 12:59:15
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Since all these 'failures' are simply known properties of the PRA check
there is absolutely no value in changing the version string.

Of course there is.  The fact alone that S-ID has different "failure 
modes" than SPF does, justifies a clear separation between those two 
"experiments".

The PRA implementations are certainly not going to follow this advice if
it is made. All that the IESG would achieve is to further confuse and
complicate deployment of SPF/Sender-ID by giving advice that is
ill-founded. 

Only the receiver of an email has any right to decide how their spam
filter is going to work. The purpose of SPF is to provide the sender a
mechanism that helps them to pursuade the recipient to receive the
email message.

Please be aware that your personal view of what is the purpose of SPF is 
far from authoritative.

Furthermore, this is _not_ about policing receivers on how they filter 
their incoming mail.  This is about the IETF publishing conflicting 
specifications.  (Yes, I am aware that _you_ don't see any conflict.  
That however is besides the point of this paragraph.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDD3I6wL7PKlBZWjsRAjOXAJ0avZnTdmcG1Twf93R1pGEzZ+kRYgCg9pNZ
aEjFiOdeBBv9SEIHaZ3jpq8=
=iMMZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>